offences under Sections 323 and 448 I.P.C. and that A3 is not guilty of offence under Section 324 I.P.C. It is a case of dispute regarding tiled house in between two parties. Both the parties are related to each other. It is contended by the Additional Public Prosecutor that the lower Court should have convicted A1 for offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and that simply because weapon with which A1 beat the de facto complainant is not produced, it cannot be said that the prosecution could not make out the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Even according to the prosecution case, the weapon wielded by A1 is a stick. There is no description of the stick. Mere stick is not a deadly weapon. Therefore, the lower Court rightly did not convict A1 for offence under Section 324 I.P.C. A2 is no other than brother of the de facto complainant. A3 is wife of A1. It is almost a family dispute between both the parties regarding property. There is no element of outraging modesty of PW.1 in this case, because the alleged conviction of the accused is regarding property dispute and not lust against PW.1. The lower Court rightly acquitted A2 and A3 and convicted A1 for offences under Sections 323 and 448 I.P.C. There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment passed by the lower Court.
